I wasn't defensive, but I did have a hard time understanding your reasoning. That's why I asked the questions I asked.

Corkcampbell
wrote:

understand my opinion, which is only that I didn't think that the lens in question is worth $400.

Well until recently, it cost about 330 and may well fall back to that level once supply is sufficient. That makes it 130 dollars more expensive than the Sony 35/1.8 for APS-C. The Panasonic is clearly better built than the Sony (among other things, the latter has a plastic mount) and none of the major lens review sites has to my knowledge tested the Sony yet. The 20/1.7, by contrast has been extensively reviewed with excellent results.

I clearly said it was a nice lens, but also explained that I missed a little DOF flexibility

Well you said that it didn't give you "the DOF ability expected of a good prime" which is a far more categorical statement. Further, the very small difference in this regard (about half a stop) compared to APS-C is a matter of systems choice (m43 versus APS-C) rather than lens choice (the 20/1.7 versus APS-C lenses like the Sony mentioned above).

and just mentioned that the little Sony (A33) gave me a little more choice of primes, primes that cost much less than the Pany (except the 50mm mentioned, which is a 1.4).

Well, Sony Alpha offers a bit more to choose from than m43 if you are not happy with manual focus (as I am). With regard to manual focus lenses, it is the other way around: Far more to choose from for m43 at far better prices. Also, you mentioned that you used an 85 mm with your A33. Which one is that and how much did you pay for it?

What it may boil down to is that I heard so much praise and worshipping of this lens before getting it, that perhaps I was a little surprised to find it was somewhat ordinary for its class.

Its performance, especially wide open is anything but ordinary.

On the other hand, after hearing much whining about the 14-45 kit, I was equally surprised to find that it really is a decent lens, at the right price.

I haven't seen any whining about the 14-45 here. Most people seem to find it more than decent. As to price, it is now up at the same level as the 20/1.7. I guess you got it for far less when you could it buy it together with the body as a kit lens.

Since it should be obvious that I favor portability, I made no mention of full-frame, so I'm not sure where that reference came from.

It came from the fact that the difference when it comes to DOF control is miniscule as long as APS-C is the point of comparison. So I put that reference in to clarify that your categorical statement would have made somewhat more sense if we would compare with FF cameras.

I like the m4/3 system and use it often, but not for the 20mm, although it's handy to have at hand. I also have the kit lens mentioned above, and the 45-200, which I finally chose over the 45mm 2.8.

Coincidentally, I will be leaving in a few hours (when the stores open) to go shop for a GH2. Every day, I choose whatever camera I'm going to take with me the next day and, before even seeing this thread, I had packed my GF1 with 20mm!

According to your previous message, you had already retired your GF1+20/1.7 combo and returned to the DP2 for equivalent needs. So it seems a bit odd that just before writing that, you had in fact packed the GF1+20/1.7 for the next day. And you never answered my question of why the DP2 would be preferable.